TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @MarcNixon24
@MarcNixon24 - Marc Nixon
OSTRICH FARM They slaughtered healthy birds, left the carcasses to rot so that wildlife could pick at the corpses and NOW BULLDOZED LIKE TRASH IF THESE BIRDS WERE SICK WHY NO HAZMAT for machine operator? This is CANADA? Disgusting. Outrage warranted https://t.co/OljVehPVRN
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m sharing the MOOSE DATA BOMB: Unreal investigative journalism shows Mark Carney enriching himself through a $2B deal he’s personally tied to—bigger than anyone realizes. Watch the full breakdown in the comments. Yes, share with everyone.
@MarcNixon24 - Marc Nixon
🚨 MOOSE 🫎 DATA BOMB 🚨 UNREAL investigative journalism just dropped undeniable proof Mark Carney is enriching himself through a $2 BILLION deal he’s personally tied to. 💰 This is bigger than anyone realizes. Watch the FULL breakdown in the comments. 👇 @dsimieritsch https://t.co/IwN1pmzgzS
@MarcNixon24 - Marc Nixon
@MarcNixon24 - Marc Nixon
@WestWes91563 @dsimieritsch Yes share with everyone
@MarcNixon24 - Marc Nixon
Pierre Poilievre was RIGHT. Justin Trudeau BROKE THE LAW in SNC and then ABUSED his power to COVER IT UP. RCMP confirm this. CBC why are you not showing this clip? https://t.co/21f9icWnTj
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on the RCMP examination into whether the prime minister violated section 139(2) of the Criminal Code by obstructing justice, specifically in relation to SNC-Lavalin. The RCMP confirmed that the strongest theory of obstruction centered on the prime minister’s decision to shuffle Jody Wilson-Raybould from the position of attorney general to a different role, in order for a new attorney general to potentially make a different decision regarding the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. It was acknowledged that the RCMP did not have access to all material evidence surrounding Wilson-Raybould’s removal as attorney general.
The witnesses clarified that the missing material evidence was central to determining if the prime minister had broken the law, and the gap existed because the scope of the order in council with respect to waiving cabinet confidentiality did not permit full examination of that evidence. The RCMP stated that the parameters of the order limited their ability to pursue the most consequential line of inquiry related to obstruction of justice.
When asked who could expand the parameters of the order in council, the witnesses indicated that the prime minister would be the responsible decision-maker within the government, though one witness was unsure of the exact process. The RCMP had, prior to their assessment, requested an expansion of the parameters to obtain that evidence, but the request was denied. The denial was attributed to the Prime Minister’s Office (PCO), and a letter from the Department of Justice was referenced in the RCMP investigation report as having clarified that the expansion was not permitted.
The RCMP observers testified that the refusal to expand the scope significantly impeded the full investigation into the prime minister’s potential obstruction of justice, limiting their capability to pursue a full inquiry. One speaker acknowledged the difficulty of speculating about what additional information might exist, describing it as potentially a “Pandora’s box.”
In response to questions about accountability, one speaker stated that no single Canadian could block an RCMP investigation, but conceded that the RCMP must operate within the parameters and regulations in place. The Prime Minister’s personal department’s refusal to broaden the search was characterized as part of a pattern of cover-up by the questioning party, with the suggestion that the prime minister, to be subject to the rule of law, should not be shielded by his department from investigation.
Both speakers emphasized that the investigation proceeded within the established regulatory framework, that attempts were made to obtain more information, and that those attempts were refused. The session concluded with a formal courtesy and thanks to the commissioner and the justice officials.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thank you, mister chair. Thank you to the witnesses. A part of the RCMP's examination to determine whether the prime minister violated section one thirty nine sub two of criminal code by committing obstruction of justice. Correct? That was part of the RCMP's examination.
Speaker 1: That's correct, mister chair. And
Speaker 0: paragraph 19 of the RCMP investigation report states that the strongest fury towards an offensive obstruction of justice was that the prime minister shuffled Jody Wilson Raybold out of the position of attorney general so that a new attorney general would make a different decision regarding the prosecution of SNC Lavalin. Correct? That's correct, mister chair. And it's fair to say that the RCMP did not have access to all material evidence surrounding miss Wilson Rabel being shuffled out as attorney general. Correct?
Speaker 1: That's correct, mister chair.
Speaker 0: And so, just to clarify then or emphasize, the RCMP did not have access to all material evidence on the strongest theory surrounding the prime minister's potential criminality involving obstruction of justice. Correct?
Speaker 1: That's correct, mister chair. And
Speaker 0: the reason the RCMP did not have access to that material evidence on what was central to determining whether the prime minister broke the law was because of the parameters of the scope of the order of counsel with respect to the waiver of cabinet confidentiality. Correct?
Speaker 1: That's correct, mister chair. The parameters did not allow us to fully look into this one. However, I should just
Speaker 0: Thank add thank you for that. You answered it. The parameters did not allow you to, get that evidence. Now there is one person who had the authority to expand the parameters of that order and council, and that is the prime minister himself. Correct?
Speaker 1: I would have to say, mister chair, I'm not exactly sure of the exact process of where the prime minister would be involved in such a decision. However, I I do believe the decision has to be made within the Somewhere. Somewhere within the government.
Speaker 0: I would submit the decision would have to be made by the prime minister, but the RCMP went and requested an expansion of the scope to obtain that evidence, to follow that evidence. Correct?
Speaker 1: Before we proceeded with the assessment, yes. We did make a request for an expansion to the parameters.
Speaker 2: I just have, mister Cooper, it's not to follow the evidence. It's to glean additional information. That could be evidence. Correct.
Speaker 0: And that request was turned down on 08/30/2019.
Speaker 1: I would have to say, mister chair, that the request for the expansion was was not allowed.
Speaker 0: It was turned down, and it was turned down by the PCO, the prime minister's department. Correct?
Speaker 1: We mister chair, we did receive a letter from the Department of Justice. I could not remember exactly specifically if this came from the
Speaker 0: Well, it was from the PCO, and that's in the RCMP's investigation report. And, would it be fair to say that the refusal by the prime minister's personal department, the PCO, to expand the scope of the order in council significantly impeded the full investigation into the prime minister's potential obstruction of justice.
Speaker 2: It limited our capability of pursuing a full investigation.
Speaker 0: And it would have limited it in a fairly significant way. Because after all, we're talking about going to the heart of the matter of obstruction.
Speaker 2: And again, I I don't know what additional not knowing what additional information is out there, it's hard for me to speculate that there's a Pandora box out there which is full of information, so it's hard for us without speculating.
Speaker 0: Well, let the record show that the prime minister's department, the PCO, obstructed the RCMP investigation into the prime minister's potential obstruction of justice. Are you aware of any other Canadian who can single handedly block the RCMP from investigating his own criminality in such an effective way as the prime minister? Good question. Fantastic.
Speaker 2: I wouldn't I wouldn't use the term, mister mister president. I wouldn't use the term block. The RCMP is when it runs an investigation, operates within the parameters and the regulations that we're allowed to. And we see international security investigation as well where there's some information that we don't have access to, we can't use into investigations. It's the it's the parameters it's the it's the parameters that we are
Speaker 0: I think the answer to that question is there is no one who has such powers. And was any explanation provided by the prime minister's personal department why there was this refusal to expand the scope of the order in council?
Speaker 1: Again, mister chair, as far as for a response on this one, of course, it was indicated, of course, the the importance, of course, of these privilege that do exist. They are there for a reason. And, again, as the commissioner mentioned Well we do have to operate within these parameters.
Speaker 0: It would seem to me to be part of a pattern of cover up.
Speaker 2: That's right.
Speaker 0: That's what it would seem to me to be. How can the prime minister be subject to the rule of law like every other Canadian if his personal department can shield him from an RCMP criminal investigation?
Speaker 2: Absolutely. So mister chair, I'll I'll I'll let individuals draw their own conclusion. What I what I come back to is we operate within a set of regulations and parameters that, unfortunately, we did we made the effort to go and get additional information, and it was refused.
Speaker 0: Thank you, commissioner. Thank you. Justice, I Thank would you, mister Cooper.
@MarcNixon24 - Marc Nixon
They did freeze bank accounts. They did erase news from social media. They did crush Charter rights. And now they’re quietly writing laws to make it all legal next time. But sure… tell me again how it’s a “conspiracy theory.” 🧠 https://t.co/E5XNqi9b9k
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 accuses the Liberals of claiming they will "take away your Internet," "take away your cell phones," and deny you the opportunity to do your banking, calling it a conspiracy even as they say the legislation is "about protecting Canadians, protecting the economy." He asks, "Does he not see the merit for protecting that?" regarding cyber security legislation intended to safeguard the economy and daily transitions.
Speaker 1, the honorable member for Kitchener South Hessler, replies: "Mister speaker, I wish this was a conspiracy. I wish the Liberals had the shame to keep this secret. It's open. It's in the bill. Multiple civil society, groups have written letters to them asking them to change this, sounding the alarm." He adds: "They might freeze bank accounts. They already did that, and the federal court told them that was a violation of charter rights, and they have no response to that. I'm ... asking them, apologize. ... Now would be a terrific time to apologize for violating our charter rights..."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The member opposite tries to say, you have government, you know, the Liberal Party. We're gonna take away your Internet. We're gonna take away your cell phones. We're gonna deny you the opportunity to do your banking. And they come up with this whole conspiracy wearing no well, not necessarily wearing a tin hat, but this conspiracy theory how big government's gonna take your take everything away when the legislation is all about protecting Canadians, protecting the economy.
Does the member see any merit in having cyber security legislation that would ensure that the interests of Canadians is being served, such as our economy, economic transitions that take place every day by the thousands. Does he not see the merit for protecting that? The honorable member for Kitchener South Hessler.
Speaker 1: Mister speaker, I wish this was a conspiracy. I wish the Liberals had the shame to keep this secret. It's open. It's in the bill. Multiple civil society, groups have written letters to them asking them to change this, sounding the alarm.
And and when he he he said he thinks that I think it's a conspiracy that they might freeze bank accounts. They already did that, and the federal court told them that was a violation of charter rights, and they have no response to that. I'm I'm asking them, apologize. If you're like, stand up. You have a lot to say.
Now would be a terrific time to apologize for violating our charter rights in the last I'm serious. I don't know why you're laughing. Excuse me, mister speaker.
@MarcNixon24 - Marc Nixon
BREAKING NEWS 🚨 🇯🇵 Sanae Takaichi becomes Prime Minister of Japan! A strong conservative woman just crushed the woke establishment. The Left is in shambles. This is the way. 🇯🇵🔥 https://t.co/pPoC9haDXk
@MarcNixon24 - Marc Nixon
Bill C-8 is Carney’s digital Emergencies Act After illegally freezing bank accounts, now they want vague language to criminalize dissent This is how free speech dies—under the cover of “cybersecurity.” Watch this EXPLOSIVE clip from the House of Commons https://t.co/TwDVXSIlhm
Video Transcript AI Summary
Hon. member for Kitchener South Kessler criticized Bill C-8, saying: 'fifteen point one and fifteen point two give the minister the unprecedented, incredible power to kick any Canadian citizen off the Internet to cut off their phone line, to turn off their cell phone.' He argued the minister can act on 'any threat' rather than 'extreme threats,' and warned of digital suppression. He cited '15.2 clause five' as enabling a secret decision and warned of a 'digital gulag' with 'no warrant, no trial, no automatic judicial review.' He noted: 'An order made under subsection one or two may include a provision prohibiting the disclosure of its existence or some or all of its contents by any person.' Civil society groups warned that 'Bill c 26 grants the government sweeping new powers ... intrude on the private lives of Canadians' and urged committee fixes. He urged Conservatives to repair the bill.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Honorable member for Kitchener South Kessler. Thank you, mister speaker. And may I begin by also thanking my, learned friend from Haldim and Norfolk for that terrific speech. She's a very tough act to follow. Mister speaker, when I read this bill for the first time, my jaw hit the floor.
As I had previously discussed in this house, my motivation for signing up to become a politician was the violation of basic charter rights that the liberals perpetrated in the last parliament. And even with that background in mind, I thought I had hoped that they perhaps had been chastened and they would not try so hard to claim onto themselves powers explicitly forbidden by our constitution in this parliament. But I was wrong. And before I start talking about this bill today, let me just say, mister speaker, has it been shocking to listen to Liberals claim to defend charter rights when they themselves violated section two and section eight of our charter Right. When they imposed the Emergencies Act, and that was determined by justice Mosley of the federal court.
Right. All the Liberal members in the last parliament voted to do that, and I do not wanna hear anymore about defending charter rights from any such member who has not apologized for that violation. Now on to the present bill. I am concerned, as I say, by the following sections. Fifteen point one and fifteen point two give the minister the unprecedented, incredible power to kick any private Canadian citizen off the Internet to cut off their phone line, to turn off their cell phone.
That is the plain language summary, but I will quote now the bill in its legalese. There is reasonable grounds to believe that it is necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunication system against any threat. The minister may prohibit a telecommunication service provider from providing any service to the specified person. Now perhaps this might make sense to do in an extreme circumstance if a person is trying to cause our satellites to crash or to jam military radar. But this section does not use language about extreme threats of physical damage or threats to national security.
It says any threat. And as far as I can tell, given the liberals incautious and bombastic use of terms like misinformation, that being any information they don't like, or existential threat. For instance, the member from Milton called the leader of my party an existential threat to our democracy, which is, of course, bananas. So given their incautious and bombastic use of these phrases, it seems to me that the industry minister could deem any speech she doesn't like any threat and then kick that person off the internet. This section reaches Chinese Communist Party levels of government overreach and they should be ashamed of themselves.
The bill gets worse. It does not get better, mister speaker. 15.2 clause five gives the minister the ability to make her decision to kick someone off the Internet. Secret. So imagine that.
You've annoyed the Liberal Party overlords, and they've decided to kick you off the Internet and cut your phone line. You can't tell anyone that you've been cut off. I have no idea how this could even possibly be enforced. But imagine, imagine being put effectively in a digital gulag, unable to use the phone or the Internet or your online banking, and if you tell anyone, that this happened, you could go to physical jail. I do not doubt that the Liberals will stand and say that I'm being somehow outlandish in my interpretation of this.
I am not. It is there in black and white. Let me quote it for them. It seems like they haven't read it. 15.2 clause five.
An order made under subsection one or two may include a provision prohibiting the disclosure of its existence or some or all of its contents by any person. And if you aren't inclined to believe me, please just Google it. Bill C8, Canadian Constitution Foundation. There you will find October 1, their 10/01/2025 publication where their expert lawyers corroborate my concerns. Mister speaker, I am sorry to say the bill continues to get worse.
It does not get better. Section 15.4 says, the minister may require any person to provide within any time any information that would help her make a decision under 15.1 or 15.2. So it seems to me that if this legislation passes in its current unamended form, the ministry of could wake up one morning, decide that you or any other private citizen, maybe possibly she's not quite sure, could be some sort of threat to our telecommunication system with no warrant, no trial, no automatic judicial review. She could compel Rogers or Telus to give her that citizen's address book or their internet search history or their browser history. This is unreasonable and it is shocking.
This is the Liberal Party under their new prime minister. Meet the new boss same as the old boss. In my first speech to this house, I beseeched the new prime minister to discard this darkness and turn towards the light. By reintroducing this Trudeau legislation, he has failed to make the turn. Mister speaker, it is not just me raising these concerns.
They tried to ram this bill through the last parliament. Multiple civil society groups wrote an open letter to former minister Marco Mendocino alerting him to these problems. Signatories to that letter include the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Constitution Foundation, the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, Open Media, the Privacy and Access Council of Canada. Here is a quote from that letter. Bill c 26 grants the government sweeping new powers not only over vast swaths of the Canadian economy, but also to intrude on the private lives of Canadians.
Here's another quote. Time and again, we've seen federal governments try to grant themselves the power to intrude on our private lives in the name of security. And time and again, people in Canada have had to come together to push back. They go on to say that bill one that the bill lacks guardrails to constrain abuse, permits unknowable orders to Trump public regulation, authorizes the use of secret evidence in court, grants powers without accountability, and lacks justification. That is, it doesn't even fix the cyber security problems it purports to solve.
Do the liberals believe that creeping authoritarianism worldwide and on this content is a problem or do they not? And if they do, why have they written a bill with such authoritarian provisions? Why have they failed entirely to take the advice of these civil liberty groups? Mister speaker, once again, this bill will go to committee. Once again, conservatives will be called upon to do the Liberals' homework and repair this deeply, deeply flawed bill.
The offending provisions that I have described do not make us any safer, mister speaker. The industry minister turning off a private Canadian citizen cell phone does nothing to stop hackers in Russia, China, and Iran from raking havoc on our telecommunications infrastructure. They can't fix the problem because they don't understand the problem. They don't even understand where the problem is coming from. And in the relatively uncommon situation where the threat is indeed coming from a private Canadian citizen in his mother's basement, why would you cut off his Rogers account?
Get a warrant, arrest him, have a trial in open court, and put him in jail. It is the conservatives who care about and understand cybersecurity, mister speaker. Those with even a passing familiarity of the day's news will recall that conservatives called to ban Huawei from our five g networks for three years before they on the opposite opposite side deigned to take that threat seriously. We will salvage what is good out of this bill, and we're happy to do that work for the good of Canadians. But this cleanup job should not be necessary.
If the liberals would merely live up to their apparently insincere reverence for our charter rights, We wouldn't even need to have this conversation. Thank you, mister speaker.
@MarcNixon24 - Marc Nixon
Holy SH💩T BREAKING 💥 CARNEY CAUGHT The man running Canada: Hand-picked Brookfield’s cash machines Still tied to their payouts Pretends his “blind trust” 99% of his decisions ESCAPE conflict rules Canada isn’t being governed It’s being LOOTED https://t.co/JD9exHUSK8
Video Transcript AI Summary
When prime minister Carney set up his blind trust, he knew exactly what went in it.
The holdings in these funds have not been disclosed to the public.
But the prime minister, he knows what's in them.
These are millions of dollars to our best estimation.
In New York, when the prime minister was there just last week, he met with a variety of investment managers, all who are implicated in funds that he holds.
That places them in a pretty precarious position of conflict.
It's highly likely that, Mark Carney's Liberal government has made or will make publicly policy decisions that will impact the success of the holdings in these funds, Canada's at risk of entering a massive conflict of interest scenario.
So mister Koniker, shouldn't the prime minister be absolutely required to disclose the assets that exist within these funds?
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Five minutes. Go ahead, please.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Sir, I I sense your frustration. And in the interest of time, I'm I'm gonna ask you some quick questions if that's okay for some clarity. You've raised a lot here. When prime minister Carney set up his blind trust, he knew exactly what went in it.
Correct? And it's unlikely the assets that went into the blind trust in such a short period of time have changed significantly. Correct?
Speaker 0: Ethics Commissioner Von Finkenstein acknowledged that most trustees will not change, the holdings. So I I agree with that. They won't. And even if they did, they're gonna be investing in big businesses in Canada and you're gonna know they're investing in big business Canada. I mean we we have conglomerates of industry sectors that are dominated by big businesses, and you're going to be invested in them because that's what everyone invests in in Canada.
Speaker 1: I spent some time in the investment world before I put my name on a ballot. He co led efforts to raise billions of dollars of capital for these funds. Correct? Yes. Okay.
Now the holdings in these funds have not been disclosed to the public. Correct?
Speaker 0: That's right. Not all the details.
Speaker 1: That's remarkable. But but the prime minister, he knows what's in them. Right?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Okay. So now let me just try and get a sense of this. This isn't some sort of middle class holdings. These aren't modest savings of somebody who is making their way through the world. These are millions of dollars to our best estimation.
Correct?
Speaker 0: Yes. According to the best estimate of including the value of the stock options.
Speaker 1: And would you say the prime minister is entitled to future carried interest payments based on the performance of those funds, correct?
Speaker 0: I wouldn't say the infamous phrase that he's entitled to is entitlements, but yes, he's he is entitled, to that and to the, value of the stock options when they eventually mature in 02/1933, 02/1934.
Speaker 1: It's a remarkable throwback. I appreciate that very much, sir. Let me ask this. In in New York, when the prime minister was there just last week, he met with a variety of investment managers, all who are implicated in funds that he holds. That places them in a in a pretty precarious position of conflict.
Correct?
Speaker 0: Yes. Now
Speaker 1: if it's highly likely that, Mark Carney's Liberal government has made or will make publicly policy decisions that will impact the success of the holdings in these funds, Canada's at risk of entering a massive conflict of interest scenario. Correct?
Speaker 0: Canada's policy making process, yes, because of the, central role of the of the prime minister who is the boss over all policy making processes in the end.
Speaker 1: So mister Koniker, shouldn't the prime minister be absolutely required to disclose the assets that exist within these funds?
Speaker 0: Yes. There should be full disclosure, but it doesn't it adds a bit of transparency, but it doesn't resolve the conflict of interest. Transparency is transparency, and removing a conflict of interest is removing a conflict of interest. The one does not do the other.
Speaker 1: You know, it's a devastating indictment that you've laid out here in terms of the the risk that the prime minister's in. Have you
reSee.it AI Summary
Carney stated there would be no recognition of Palestine unless Hamas released all hostages, disarmed, and had no governance role. Today, he recognized Palestine anyway. I feel frustrated by the contradictions and lies.
@MarcNixon24 - Marc Nixon
AUG 1: Carney said NO recognition of Palestine unless: 1️⃣ Hamas released ALL hostages 2️⃣ Hamas disarmed 3️⃣ Hamas played ZERO role in governance TODAY: Carney recognizes Palestine anyway. He LIED. Again. Who else is sick of the lies? https://t.co/YOh4dZM7AP
Video Transcript AI Summary
Canada intends to recognize the state of Palestine at the eightieth session of the United Nations General Assembly in September 2025.
This intention is predicated on the Palestinian Authority's commitment to much needed reforms, including commitments by the Palestinian Authority's president Abbas to fundamentally reform its governance, to hold general elections in 2026 in which Hamas can play no part and to demilitarize the Palestinian state.
Canada reiterates that Hamas must immediately release all hostages taken in their horrific terrorist attack of October 7, that Hamas must disarm, and that Hamas must play no role in the future governance of Palestine.
Canada will always steadfastly support Israel's existence as an independent state in the Middle East living in peace and security.
Any path to lasting peace for Israel also requires a viable and stable Palestinian state and one that recognizes Israel's inalienable right to security and peace.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: For the reasons I cited earlier, Canada intends to recognize the state of Palestine at the eightieth session of the United Nations General Assembly in September 2025. This intention is predicated on the Palestinian Authority's commitment to much needed reforms, including commitments by the Palestinian Authority's president Abbas to fundamentally reform its governance, to hold general elections in 2026 in which Hamas can play no part and to demilitarize the Palestinian state. Canada will increase its efforts in supporting strong democratic governance in Palestine and the contributions of its people to a more peaceful and hopeful future. I spoke today with president Abbas at length to reaffirm his commitment. Canada reiterates that Hamas must immediately release all hostages taken in their horrific terrorist attack of October 7, that Hamas must disarm, and that Hamas must play no role in the future governance of Palestine.
Canada will always steadfastly support Israel's existence as an independent state in the Middle East living in peace and security. Any path to lasting peace for Israel also requires a viable and stable Palestinian state and one that recognizes Israel's inalienable right to security and peace.
@MarcNixon24 - Marc Nixon
Video clip provided by @ryangerritsen
@MarcNixon24 - Marc Nixon
@ryangerritsen We’ve always said it. He’s a walk-in contradiction.
@MarcNixon24 - Marc Nixon
This is FACTUALLY WRONG. Danielle Smith is NOT rolling out “Agenda 2030.” Alberta’s new ID is a PHYSICAL CARD. It simply adds your citizenship status to your driver’s licence. It also helps prevent election fraud. NO DIGITAL ANYTHING. @liz_churchill10 https://t.co/PFriS45Emq
reSee.it AI Summary
I feel that CBC distorts reality, making it hard for Canadians to discern the truth. I see violence from the left being misrepresented as conservative extremism. It seems like legacy media manipulates rather than informs. I'm considering turning it off and advocating for defunding.
@MarcNixon24 - Marc Nixon
Apparently CBC’s job is to twist reality until Canadians can’t tell up from down. Violence from the left yet the media still spins it as conservative extremism Legacy media doesn’t inform Canadians it manipulates them Turn it off. Starve it. Defund it https://t.co/9ImggGZT0i
@MarcNixon24 - Marc Nixon
Video clip provided by @cbcwatcher
@MarcNixon24 - Marc Nixon
This is huge: Rebel News WINS the right to attend the G7. Mark Carney backed down the second he realized the courts would actually hear the case — and he’d lose in spectacular fashion. Canadians will get real coverage. Not just the state-funded MSM. https://t.co/BAFSee06Nw
Video Transcript AI Summary
Kearney's foreign affairs department refused to accredit reporters with no justification, unlike Trudeau's debates commission, which tried to ban them twice. The speaker knew they had a good chance in court, given the Federal Court of Canada has twice ruled against the Liberals for blocking their journalists, but was concerned about the justice system's speed.
The government was violating rights, but a trial after the G7 summit would result in a default win for them. The Federal Court found a judge and courtroom quickly enough. Kearney's lawyers surrendered and backed down, only after the court said they could proceed. The speaker believes their lawyers knew they would lose in court, hoping to be saved by a busy court schedule.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Kearney's foreign affairs department had no justification at all for keeping our reporters out. And unlike Trudeau's debates commission who tried to ban us twice, this time they didn't even try to come up with a justification. They just refused to accredit us. No reason given. But that just doesn't cut it when you're the government violating freedom of the press.
It doesn't work that way. So I knew we had a good chance given that the Federal Court of Canada has already twice slapped down the Liberals for trying to block our journalists. But you never know what's gonna happen in court. You never know what judge you're gonna get. There's always a human factor, a risk.
So I was still a bit nervous. My main concern was this, could the justice system move fast enough? Trials often take years. We were asking the federal court to have an emergency hearing the next day at 09:30AM and to give us their ruling that same night. That's faster than 99.9% of all court cases, and I think that's what Carney's lawyers thought would save them.
They knew that they were violating our rights, but if we couldn't get our day in court until after the g seven was done, then they would win by default. You see? It all came down to the federal court. Could they find us a judge and a courtroom quickly enough? Well, yes, they did.
Now we didn't hear that until the night. And surprise, surprise, it was only after the court said they could jam us in. That's when Kearney's lawyers called us up and said they weren't gonna fight back. They were gonna surrender and back down and let us in. I think their lawyers knew that if they fought us in court, they would absolutely be shredded by the judge given that the federal court has already ruled twice in our favor.
They simply were hoping to be saved by a too busy court schedule, but they weren't, so they caved in.
@MarcNixon24 - Marc Nixon
BOOM 💥 Danielle Smith just demolished Vassy Kapelos Vassy read StatsCan oil production numbers Danielle fired back with context, facts, and TRUTH BOMBS. MIC 🎤 DROP MOMENT This is how you handle media spin. 🔥 https://t.co/mTQ7rbGqbF
Video Transcript AI Summary
Crude oil production reached a record high in 2024, up 4.3% from 2023, according to Statistics Canada. One speaker stated that there is an aspiration to double production and reach six to eight million barrels a day. The speaker questions why they should hold back when the world wants their products, asserting that now is the time to build.
Another speaker countered the idea that things are destitute or that production is extremely capped, stating that the numbers bear out a different story.
One speaker stated that living standards are the lowest in the world and falling behind all OECD countries in productivity growth and standard of living growth because projects consistently fail. They added that to be a rich country and keep up with neighbors, it's necessary to build things, extract resources, and get products to market, rather than continuing to borrow. They believe there needs to be a complete attitude adjustment about these projects because of lost opportunity.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Get off the ground, then we'll be in the same position that we have been for the last ten years watching missed opportunity go by.
Speaker 1: I just quickly point out according to Statistics Canada, for the fourth consecutive year, production of crude oil and equivalent projects reached a record high in 2024, up 4.3% from 2023. I do really quickly want to turn to ask
Speaker 0: you a I just want to say we have an aspiration to double our production and we could have. We could have been at already probably six to seven to 8,000,000 barrels a day. That's what I'm looking at. And why should we hold ourselves back when we know the world wants our products? This is the time for us to build them.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I guess I'm just countering the idea that things are destitute or that nothing is being developed or production is extremely capped. Like the numbers bear out a different story. They're not perhaps as high as you and other people in the province or maybe even across the country want to see, but they're not going down.
Speaker 0: Vashi, we've got the lowest living standards in the world. Like we're falling behind all the OECD countries in productivity growth and standard of living growth. And that's because these are the kinds of projects that consistently fail and do not get built. So we can't sugarcoat that. That is a reality.
If we wanna be a rich country and we wanna be able to keep up with our neighbors and growth, we've got to build things. We've got to dig things out of the ground. We've to get products to market. We can't keep on borrowing and borrowing and borrowing and watching the kind of situation that we've seen over the last ten years develop. Is not what Albertans want.
It's not what Canadians want. And so I think there needs to be a complete attitude adjustment about all of these projects because we've lost a lot of opportunity across the board, across the country.
@MarcNixon24 - Marc Nixon
WATCH: South African delegation completely freezes as video of White persecution rolls in the Oval Office. They did not want to glance at the screen. They did not expect that to play. Awkward doesn’t even begin to describe it. https://t.co/jlx9wUvzqv
reSee.it AI Summary
Moose on the Loose released a shocking report on Mark Carney, exposing his connections to a network of companies involved in green initiatives. I believe he poses a significant threat and has ambitions to dominate Canada. Check out the full report for details.
@MarcNixon24 - Marc Nixon
BREAKING: Moose on the Loose just dropped the most damning report yet on Mark Carney and his web of companies tied to the green grift. This is the most dangerous man in the world — and he’s trying to take over Canada. Watch the full report: https://t.co/DkMYK21o3b
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker alleges that Mark Carney and Justin Trudeau are setting up a system where companies must buy carbon credits from companies like Brookfield if they are not "eco and green." They claim Brookfield will profit immensely from this.
The speaker points to SEC filings showing Carney has 209,000 shares of Brookfield at $35 and 200,000 shares at $40, potentially netting him $6.8 million if sold. They suggest Carney's promotion of net-zero policies could greatly increase Brookfield's stock value, further enriching him. The speaker demands transparency regarding Carney's investments, questioning if he owns additional shares of Brookfield.
The speaker plays audio of Carney discussing a $100 billion a year market in carbon offsets and stating that financial institutions expect to "make a lot of money off of this" transition to net zero. The speaker concludes that Carney has significant conflicts of interest and should not be Prime Minister.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Was in charge of. So essentially Mark Carney and Justin Trudeau have set this up. So they forced our entire country down this path with Brookfield getting ready to capture all the money that comes in when they force carbon credits on all of us. So any company that's not super eco and green, they'll have to buy carbon credits from a company like Brookfield that produces them. And since Brookfield is the leader in this space, they will make hand over fist cash on all of this.
They're gonna make a fortune on this. That's what I think their plan is here. That's what I think is going on. And that's why Mark Carney won't disclose what his financial interests are. Won't disclose what his assets are.
They're in a blind trust. I don't know what's in there. I have no idea. Who's controlling his blind trust? His buddy from Goldman Sachs?
Who's controlling it? Is it Bruce Flatt? So after seeing all of this, if we go to Mark Carney's SEC reporting here coming directly from the security and exchange commissions in America, as it says here, Mark Carney on the side. So he's got 209,000 shares of Brookfield at $35 These are stock options. So he can buy at this price.
He's also got 200,000 shares at strike price of $40 which currently if you were to buy them and sell them, you would get $6,800,000 profit. That's profit if you were just to buy them and sell them. So if he pushes forward this net zero agenda and this whole carbon capture agenda and jacks up Brookfield's earnings big time and their stock goes from $50 US to $100 to $150 to 200 to $500 Not only these stock options go way up in value, which what I can tell from other journalists are likely the options he got when he joined Brookfield. These were given to him as a bonus. He's likely bought a whole bunch of shares on top of this.
He might have $10,000,000 20 million dollars 50 dollars 1 hundred million of shares in Brookfield as well as this. This is the reason why we need to know what he's invested in. What stocks does he have? Does he have an extra 100,000 shares in Brookfield? A million shares, 10,000,000 shares in Brookfield.
Because this reeks of conflict of interest. This is beyond conflict of interest. In uncovered audio, Mark Carney admits that massive institutions like his firm Brookfield are promoting radical net zero policies not to save the planet, but to make a lot of money off of this. So instead of playing the clip off of here, let's play it off of the source, which comes from this fifty four minute video. I'm gonna play a little bit extra than what he had queued up there.
Speaker 1: That market is, for all the headlines, is tiny. I mean, it's measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars. In a true transition, this is a $100,000,000,000 a year market. And so there's a big process that's underway to put in place the plumbing and the governance, the standards for a global market and carbon offsets, which which we will see move forward, probably by the end of the year. So that's a pretty exciting development.
Third thing, and I'll stop on this, which is for the financial institutions themselves, what's their trajectory? What's their carbon footprint of the people they're investing in or lending to? And how do they expect to manage that going forward? Do they have a transition towards net zero? How much sustainable finance in another way are they going to do?
And as I mentioned a moment ago, you know, we have some of the world's biggest institutions, many of which are headquartered in The United States, who voluntarily, stood up and said, you know, we're gonna manage to net zero by 02/1950. Actually, we're gonna have specific targets by 2025 and 02/1930, so you can measure the short term. And, they don't say this quite as loudly, but what they're also saying and thinking, and we're going to make a lot of money off of this because, actually, this is the way the world's headed. I mean, I'm not sure exactly where we get there, but to be carbon competitive is is gonna be value creating.
Speaker 0: Mark Carney has more conflicts of interest than probably every other politician in parliament combined. Mark Carney cannot be the next prime minister of Can
@MarcNixon24 - Marc Nixon
https://youtu.be/hVV4o2foM4Q?si=PjgsvnGZnHTh1A67 @dsimieritsch
@MarcNixon24 - Marc Nixon
BREAKING: Ruby Dhalla broke her silence and provided this statement on CBC news. https://t.co/vacrfRWOqM
Video Transcript AI Summary
It's alarming that a candidate running for leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, potentially our next prime minister, learned of her disqualification via an email received by the media outlet interviewing her. While shocking, it's not surprising. Our internal polls showed my campaign was neck and neck with the front runner. They didn't want me on the debate stage or on the ballot. The Liberal Party wanted to ensure Mark Carney's coronation. The allegations against me are completely false.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, I think it speaks to the state of the Liberal Party of Canada that a Canada candidate who is running to become leader of the party, who is running to become prime minister in our country, is finding out that she has been disqualified on air from an email that the media outlet that she is interviewing with has received. So it is very alarming and very shocking. It is certainly not surprising because I think the Liberal Party of Canada was seeing exactly what our internal polls are telling us. That my campaign and my team, we were neck to neck with a front runner in the race. They did not want me to go on to that debate stage in Montreal.
They certainly did not want me on that ballot. And the Liberal Party of Canada wanted to complete the coronation of Mark Carney. All of the allegations that you have mentioned have been or have been, you know, that you have spoken about. They are completely false. They are
@MarcNixon24 - Marc Nixon
🇨🇦 middle class is GONE 📉 50% of Canadians are broke 🥫 25% can’t afford food 🔥 Carbon tax HIKES April 1 💸 Tax holiday ENDS this week Yet Trudeau keeps burning money on woke climate scams & reckless spending Poilievre showcases the truth 👇 https://t.co/igJrlsxSOs
Video Transcript AI Summary
We're the second-largest landmass globally, boasting 41 million people, vast natural resources including oil, natural gas, uranium, potash, freshwater, and farmland. We should be the wealthiest nation, but tariffs highlight our unmet potential. It's time for self-sufficiency. We need to build homes rapidly for our young people, foster entrepreneurial success, and ensure hard work yields rewards. We must harness our resources, secure our borders, and build a brighter future for our citizens.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We are the second biggest land mass in the world, 41,000,000 brilliant people, the third biggest supply of oil, fifth biggest supply of natural gas, biggest supply of uranium and potash. We have the biggest supply of fresh water anywhere on earth. The fifth biggest supply of farmland. We should be the richest nation on earth. These tariffs are wake up call.
That it is time for us to meet our potential. It is time for us to be a country that can trade with itself. A country that builds homes quickly for its youth. A country that allows entrepreneurs to succeed quickly and profitably so that success is once again rewarded. A country that allows hard work to pay off.
A country that harvests its own resources, that secures its borders to protect its people, that builds its
@MarcNixon24 - Marc Nixon
🚨 BREAKING: Leaked Audio Confirms Trudeau Fears Trump Will Annex Canada 🇨🇦➡️🇺🇸 At 🇨🇦🇺🇸 economic summit, Trudeau warned business leaders that Trump is serious about annexing Canada President Trump 2 weeks AGO 👇 🇺🇸U.S. hasn’t grown in size for decades—“That’s about to change.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
The United States has the largest reserves of oil and gas in the world, and we may soon expand our territory. For years, we've remained the same size, but changes are on the horizon. Our focus will be on increasing drilling efforts, which will help reduce costs and boost our energy production.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The United States has the largest amount of oil and gas of any country on Earth, and we may be a very substantially enlarged country in the not too distant. Isn't it nice to see? You know, for years, for decades, where the same size to the square foot. Probably got smaller, actually. But, we might be in a large country pretty soon.
And one of the things we're going to be doing is drill, baby, drill, because that's gonna bring everything down.
reSee.it AI Summary
I watched Chrystia Freeland on MSNBC, where she called Trump's tariffs "utter madness." She insisted Trudeau is the best leader, despite his low polling. Canadians are angry and ready to fight, but I feel like 77% of us just want an election, not a trade war.
@MarcNixon24 - Marc Nixon
Chrystia Freeland on MSNBC & called Trump’s tariffs “utter madness.” Then she said: Trudeau is the BEST person to lead 🇨🇦 even though he is polling at lowest level in Canadian history Every single Canadian is rallying behind him 🧐 WTF Canadians are ANGRY & ready to fight the 🇺🇸 🤡 She even included her deep breaths & panic attack moments No, Chrystia 77% of 🇨🇦 want an election. Not a trade war. 🇨🇦💀
Video Transcript AI Summary
You are imposing tariffs on regular Americans, and we will respond. Canada is a crucial market for U.S. exporters, larger than China, Japan, the UK, and France combined. The anger in Canada is palpable, with the entire country rallying behind Prime Minister Trudeau. The tariffs are higher than those against China, which feels like a betrayal to a loyal ally. The justification regarding fentanyl and border security is flimsy, as only a tiny fraction of fentanyl comes from Canada. Canadians are proud of their sovereignty and will retaliate against these unjustified measures. The relationship between our countries has historically been beneficial, and we want to maintain that partnership. The current situation is seen as self-harm for America, and Canadians are uniting in support of their government.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You are taxing regular Americans, and we are gonna fight back. And Canada is your biggest market. Canada is a bigger market for US Exporters than China, Japan, The UK, and France combined. For Americans like your business people, right, the customer is always right, and your customer is really angry at you. The whole country is behind the retaliation the prime minister has announced.
So now we are gonna tax American exporters who are trying to sell us stuff. That means Americans are gonna lose jobs. So this is really it is self mutilation. America is hurting itself. We think that it is utterly crazy, and we're also really, really angry at you.
Speaker 1: So madam deputy prime minister, I was really struck when prime minister Trudeau spoke over the weekend, the sense of betrayal that he expressed, that we have been there with The US, he was saying, I'm para every
Speaker 2: step of
Speaker 1: the way, even in times of need, and now this is coming out of nowhere. Elaborate on that, please. And also just more specifically, just remind viewers just how closely linked these two nations are, particularly whether it's people or goods going back and forth across the border, sometimes multiple times a day.
Speaker 0: The prime minister has been great, and I have to tell you the whole country is rallying behind him. We all feel personally hurt, and that hurt is now becoming anger. You know, we pride ourselves on being a polite, nice country. But at the Raptors game last night, the American anthem was booed. At a senators hockey game over the weekend, the American anthem was booed.
Because we do feel like we are your friends, we're your neighbors, we are your allies, and you guys are really lucky to have us on your northern border. The fact that you have this safe, secure, friendly country on your northern border is foundational to American prosperity. And now you're slapping us in the face. I mean, the tariffs against Canada are higher than the tariffs imposed against China. What's going on here, guys?
Speaker 3: It's Sally Vitale. I have a question for you in regards to the way that these tariffs have been put on. The Trump administration is saying that it's because they wanna stem the flow of fentanyl through borders as well as illegal immigration. But in your conversations and in the conversations that these governments are having, do you have a sense of what the Canadians would even have to say to get these tariffs removed and appease the administration?
Speaker 0: Well, thank you for the question, Ally. And the fact is it is these tariffs are being imposed truly for utterly no reason. The pretext offered is the flimsiest pretext possible. Less than 1%, in fact, around 0.2% of the fentanyl that comes into The US comes through the Canadian border. If border security were the issue, this could be solved in five minutes.
We wanna secure border too. We would like to stop the illegal US guns that are smuggled into Canada and cause deaths on Canadian streets, and we are very happy to work together to not have asylum seekers cross in either direction. The president has also directly threatened our national sovereignty. He has said over the weekend that if we were to become the fifty first state, there would be no tariffs. Canadians really, really, really are angry about that.
And I do want to say, we want to be your friend, we want to be your partner, we want to be your neighbor. We're good at that. We've done it for decades and decades. But we are proud of our country. We're really proud to be Canadian.
Our sovereignty is not negotiable. And if you hit us, we are gonna hit back, and the whole country is gonna be proud to do that.
Speaker 4: Well, and and and Canada has been, Mica. Canada has been our friends, our allies, our best trading partner. And, again, as Chris just said, and so many Americans need to understand that the fact that the longest peaceful contiguous border in the world is the northern border, that starts at Maine and goes all the way all the way over to Washington state. And the fact that we don't have to have troops on that border because Canada is such a good friend. Again, this is, again, for for so many Canadians, just shocking.
Speaker 2: So also a friend, Christia, who was on Morning Joe in the early days, along with all of us, sharing her political analysis. She is, educated sleep steeply not in just Canadian values, but American values and the American constitution. And so to your question of what's going on here, guys, Kristy, I ask you, imposing tariffs on a friendly border nation, What do you think is going on here? What's your assessment of what's happening here?
Speaker 0: You're the Americans, and I'm gonna leave that up to you. But I do have a message for you, which is we are a great ally and partner. There is an exit ramp here. There is a win win here. For all of our history as countries, we have been great, mutually beneficial partners and friends.
Ronald Reagan famously said, We're more than friends, we are kin. And he said that the Canada US relationship is the best, the most mutually beneficial relationship between two countries in history. Ronald Reagan said that. He was a smart guy. He was right.
But what I will also say is this isn't gonna work. You know, this is a colossal act of self mutilation where America is hurting itself. And please know that we think it is utter madness. We are not gonna back down. We are really proud to be Canadian.
We love our country so much. Canadians are rallying around this issue. We're gonna stand up for ourselves. And, you know, I used to say we do it more in sorrow than in anger, but we're moving away from the sorrow feeling towards really being angry about this because it's so unjustified and so pointless.
Speaker 4: And as the Wall Street Journal editorial page says, it is the dumbest trade war in history. Christia, let me ask you finally. I understand Canadians have all come together, and they're they're even coming together behind, prime minister Trudeau who's, has been extraordinarily unpopular in the polls, up to this point. I am curious, though, are there is there anything more he should be doing? Is there anything more that you would do Yeah.
If you if you were prime minister now in response to these tariffs?
Speaker 0: The whole country right now is united. Everyone is rallying behind this united national response. We our prime minister is our prime minister, and we are supporting him as he stands up for Canada. If I am chosen to be leader of the Liberal party and become prime minister, I will continue that fight, and I will fight really, really hard for my country.
Speaker 2: Alright. Canadian prime minister candidate and former deputy prime minister of Canada, Christia Freeland. Thank you very much. It's good to see you. Come back.
I have a feeling this story isn't going away anytime soon. Thank you very much for
Speaker 3: being
Speaker 2: on
Speaker 4: this
@MarcNixon24 - Marc Nixon
🚨 Kevin O’Leary drops INTERVIEW OF LIFETIME Making the case for Canada joining an ‘economic union’ with the U.S., he breaks it down like never before. This 51st state argument is 🔥. If this doesn’t convince you, nothing will. Millions are going to watch this INTERVIEW
Video Transcript AI Summary
The conversation centers on the idea of a closer economic union between Canada and the U.S. amid concerns about sovereignty. One participant expresses dissatisfaction with the current Canadian government and advocates for direct negotiations with Trump, believing that tariffs are not the solution. They propose ideas like a common currency and no tariffs, emphasizing that Canadians would benefit from access to the U.S. market. The discussion touches on the potential for a new passport system allowing free movement between the two countries, while also addressing concerns about cultural preservation and economic independence. The dialogue concludes with a focus on the importance of communication and exploring opportunities for economic collaboration.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The last time that Trump, threatened, to tear up NAFTA, we renegotiated. And, you know, I think whatever you think about Trudeau and this government, is generally believed to have gone quite well for us. Right? We saw trade increase 30% in that time, USMCA. So so why why not just, let those guys negotiate right now, instead of kind of inserting yourself in this debate.
Speaker 1: Listen. There's no government in Canada. There's no guys doing anything right now. We're in limbo, and I'm I'm free to have conversation.
Speaker 0: A big meeting earlier this week with all of the premiers, cabinet ministers that have been going down to Mar a Lago. There are people that have been working on this before Trump even got elected.
Speaker 1: I wanna be transparent with you. I advise Trump to ignore them, because they're gonna be gone soon. And you may think that's treason. It's not. It's just
Speaker 0: lot of people think that that's treasonous. And so what how how would you, respond? Why I I have the right people. Meddling in a situation that you have no mandate to meddle in.
Speaker 1: I have a Canadian passport. I'm a Canadian citizen. I do not want Justin Trudeau negotiating for me. He's an idiot. Sorry.
Speaker 0: But it's not just Justin Trudeau. Right? It's all the premiers with the exception of Danielle Smith. Right? Do you think Doug Ford is an idiot?
Speaker 1: No. Doug Ford did not get a session in Mar a Lago. He's been throwing barbs at Trump at at Trump, and I think he should go down there and talk to him. I think he's a great guy. But I'll tell you something.
The answer is not to throw tariffs at each other. The answer is to sit down and discuss. And frankly, the government that has been going down there that you just referenced is the same government that has destroyed our economy as measured by the Canadian dollar. I don't want anybody there negotiating on my behalf as a Canadian. I'm not speaking for anybody else except myself.
I have every right to go to Mar a Lago and say whatever I want. We enjoy freedom of speech, all of us. You can do the same thing if you wish. But I'm telling you, I don't want him negotiating. I'm talking about the Liberal government.
I want new government.
Speaker 0: Hi, mister O'Leary. Thank you so much for coming out to Front Burner.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: So I've been watching you talk about this economic union that you would like to see with America and I I am, I have to say, struggling to understand how this wouldn't end with us just becoming the 51st state. So I wonder if we could start here. What do you want to see happen and how is it different from what we currently have with the United States?
Speaker 1: Okay. So let's just, this narrative, started about 3 weeks ago, from a trip to Mar a Lago I had, and it it was it was a violent reaction, obviously. No Canadian wants to sell their sovereignty, neither do I. But as I've told people many times, particularly now that we approach Donald Trump's inauguration, there's a in dealing with Trump, you have to be able to differentiate incredible financial and military might in a very uncertain world. So we can get into the details of this.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I I mean, take me through the details. Like, what what is the signal to you? What do you think it it looks like? Because certainly, what he's saying out loud is that he will use economic force to get rid of the border between the two countries.
Speaker 1: So I'm in Washington today. So is Danielle Smith. She is making the rounds because she has an advantage now that no other premier has. She has a personal relationship with Donald Trump, and many of his advisors and his administration. She did the right thing.
She took a lot of criticism for it, I understand, but, she's thinking long term. And she also knows that she's vitally important to United States. 60% of their energy is provided. Over 4,000,000 barrels a day go into the US, and she wants to double that. That's her objective.
Trump wants it too. He wants the pipeline. I'm getting specific now. And, you know, Burgum, the energy czar, wants it also. And all of this stuff is happening in the context of of a very volatile period as Trump takes power, and he is threatened to use tariffs.
I got it. So the the the the idea, which is informal first of all, I do not represent the Canadian government. Far from it. I'm trying to get rid of the current Canadian government, and so is the rest of Canada as far as I can tell. I am a single individual having a conversation with another single individual who happens to be coming the president of the United States.
So what? I'm allowed to say whatever I wish in a conversation, and I take that freedom, and I do it. But these are ideas that have been floated around in private conversations around Mar a Lago. It's just some guy's house, and he's having a dinner party. That's exactly the way I would categorize this.
It's not on the record. He is not president and having these conversations.
Speaker 0: He he's going to be the president tomorrow. So so just what are the ideas? Take me through what it would look like, if you don't mind.
Speaker 1: Number 1, a common currency. So all of our commodities, all of our resources are priced in US dollars all around the world. We are one of the richest nations on earth in terms of proven reserves. It's all priced in US dollars. I'm going to suggest to you that if you polled Canadians right now, 11 out of 10 would wanna swap their Trudeau pesos for the American dollar.
There's no question about that. So that's not a hard sell. Now if you're gonna do that, you have to get a couple of seats on the board of the Fed. So Bank of Canada would cooperate with the Fed on a on a, basically, if you wanna keep your Trudeau pesos, that's fine. But you have a common currency now in the US dollar.
You know, people are gonna put they're gonna hang up in a little put them on their bedroom wall, say, remember that worthless piece of paper? Now I have something real. So let's start there. Okay?
Speaker 0: So let me ask you, mister O'Leary, what what would happen to the money in my TFSA or RRSP if we did that? So right now, the dollar's clocking in at 69.5¢. Right? Would I suddenly be 30% poorer?
Speaker 1: No. That is to be negotiated. I would argue that Canadians should ask for a one to one parity, one time swap.
Speaker 0: And why would the US ever give us that?
Speaker 1: How do you know? It hasn't been negotiated yet. We don't know. That's the whole point.
Speaker 0: But, like, what what would be in it for them? What would be in it for them?
Speaker 1: The unity with with a country that would provide a massive economy with not having need of anything from anybody else. We'd have total independence on every single resource and precious metal.
Speaker 0: Right now, when they buy stuff from us, it's cheaper for them. Why why would they wanna make it more expensive?
Speaker 1: Why would they make it more expensive? It's the same. It's the it's a common currency. We price our oil in US dollars already. We already do that.
We price our wood in US dollars. We price our precious metals in US dollars, not just to the Americans, everybody on earth. I don't think the dollar's a tough one. It's just not a tough sell. If somebody came along and said, if you join this program, you get US dollars in your savings account, I don't think you're gonna say no.
I don't think any Canadian is gonna say no. That's not the problem. The problem is getting into more detail of what the union looks like. So if you had 2 seats on the Fed, which is a good prorated amount, you'd have some say on interest rates. And the Bank of Canada would continue to exist, and so with the Canadian banking system.
It all stays the same except we're trying to solve for an economic union. Next, No tariff no tariffs anywhere. Right? Not just north, south. Because I'll tell you, take Vermont for example.
They're pretty unhappy about the situation with dairy in Quebec. We have barriers between provinces right now that are worse than the tariffs being proposed by Trump on Canadian goods going in the United States. You cannot ship wine from British Columbia to to Quebec or Ontario without massive tariffs and sometimes bans.
Speaker 0: Between the US and Canada, there there are very few tariffs with with the exception
Speaker 1: of the US. You mentioned a number of local people.
Speaker 0: Aren't you just describing to me
Speaker 1: That's not true. What you just said there is not factual. Okay? The price of maple syrup, a multibillion dollar commodity, is priced by a a a cooperative in Quebec. And the and the farmers who tap maple syrup in Vermont are pissed.
They don't have they have no say in the price of what they spend their time creating. It's it's it's an unfair situation.
Speaker 0: What about our industries though? Like, I guess, like maple syrup, but certainly like BC Wines or our media landscape. How do they not become completely awash in American companies? What about our culture?
Speaker 1: We don't have to give up our culture. You're not giving up your citizenship. If you're born in Montreal like I was, you're not giving up that. We're we're only focusing on the economic opportunity. If you're manufacturing something in Quebec or in Ontario or BC, you have open access to the largest market on earth with no tariffs, complete access to the largest market.
Speaker 0: And you don't think they take over ours? Like, what happens to be
Speaker 1: They could take over it now. You can buy a Canadian company. You can come in and buy, and we can buy I buy American companies. That's what I'm doing here. I invest in American companies.
We're talking about stripping away the resistance of tariffs. I mean, I mean, these are common sense situations. Every I I get the paranoia of, you know, the rhetoric and the noise we talked about earlier. Oh my goodness. I'm gonna be an American.
No. You're not. You're not gonna be an American. You're just gonna get access to the largest market on Earth. Now let's talk about that access for you personally.
If you're indigenous today in Canada, lucky enough to be an indigenous citizen, you walk across the border free both ways. That is a privilege that indigenous people of all North America have no matter what state or province they're in. I'm proposing something similar called a UNI. Now let me explain how this works. It takes some of the ideas to the economic union in Europe, but adds to it.
If you're a Canadian citizen in good standing with a Canadian passport or the same in the United States, you have in good standing US passport. You can apply for a uni. Both countries have a veto right. So if you get approved in both countries, you get this new passport that gives you freedom of movement anywhere you wish in North America, including your family. You can live wherever you like.
You pay a one constant tax rate. Let's just call it 21%, no deductions. But where the UNE comes in, even more importantly, is controlling immigration. If you wanna come to Waterloo, for example, and apply to be a robotics engineer, most coveted degree you can get in engineering right now. We let people come and do that from all around the world.
We've spent 1,000,000 building the infrastructure there and the coop programs. And then like idiots, we kick them out after they graduate. How stupid is that? Why don't we grant them a uni and preapprove their families with background checks, and then let them into the country and say you can work anywhere you want?
Speaker 0: Well, why wouldn't that result in people just going to the United States and working there? How would that not result in health care workers just going to Buffalo or Phoenix and setting up shop there? I'm just trying to figure out how this does not, cause the worst brain drain that we've ever seen.
Speaker 1: You're basically telling me the Canadians don't wanna be Canadians and they all wanna move to United States. You know, that doesn't sound I mean, that sounds ridiculous. That's not gonna happen. You know how many Americans wanna move up to BC or Kelowna or come in? And American families, many of them have their roots in Canada or have an uncle Millie or whatever it is.
There's a lot of connectivity in DNA between our two countries.
Speaker 0: Oh, housing is very expensive here. Salaries are larger in the US.
Speaker 1: All of that money invested in Canada to reduce housing, and housing is up 4 x in the last 8 years. So that's not working, whatever it is. But let's stay on your premise that everybody leaves Canada. That's not gonna happen. I think many people would come to Canada.
You get an adjustment if you got a uni. 1st, you have to get it. You have to apply for it and you have to get it. Once you get it, you're free to roam.
Speaker 0: Why would Trump agree to this? You know, he's talking a lot about unleashing the largest mass deportation program in the country's history. Contrary to the evidence, he says immigrants are stealing American jobs. So why would he be open to the idea of extending passports and jobs to more people from Canada?
Speaker 1: Those people you're referencing are illegal immigrants. They broke the law to enter the country. Of course, they're gonna get deported. That was the premise he made. He'd been given this majority mandate.
That was his number one item saying, look, I'm gonna clean this up. The American people by 7 out of 10 want him to do this, and he's gonna start it this week. The message is don't come into the country illegally. The uni does not let that happen. You have to apply for it.
It's a it's a legal immigration tool, and it's used to be selective on who you let into the economy. And you want the best and the brightest, and you want them to stay. We've gotta focus on the signal. This is not about selling sovereignty. This is not about you becoming an American citizen.
It's giving you free unfettered access to the market on an untariff basis, east west, north south. Look. When I started having this conversation, it was very contentious. That was 4 weeks ago. Now 43% of Canadians polled wanna learn more.
In a couple of weeks
Speaker 0: Well, I just I'm looking at an abacus data poll that found 71% completely against it.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Because that poll said you're giving up your sovereignty. We're not giving up sovereignty under this model. It's just economic union. You know, you have to peel the onion to discover the opportunities.
Canadians do not have to agree to this. We're going into this negotiating negotiation anyways in about 8 months. I don't know which leader will will lead us there, but it won't be Trudeau. And so the point is this is NAFTA 3 on steroids. That's what this is.
Now if someone offered me a uni, I have an o one visa for the United States, but they offered me a uni, that would be far more convenient. I would take that. No question about it. If you told me that I had no tariffs in investing in Canada and selling goods made there to the United States, I would invest more in Canada. So would the rest of the world.
Speaker 0: You've talked about a flat tax. I think you said 21%. Right? Like, how how would we be able to fund things like single payer health care here in this country with with that?
Speaker 1: Well, both health care, platforms are broken in the United States as well. The insurance policies there are punitively expensive. Canada has has a fantastic, technology in in health care, but access is a is a challenge. This is a perennial problem for both. I would think a larger market and no tariffs we could solve for it.
I mean, this is not new information. Being paranoid about, change is not the answer. It's explore the opportunity, look at the signal, and move forward in the path of least resistance. And what I'm suggesting is just common sense.
Speaker 0: I mean, do you think it's really about being paranoid about change or, stealing ourselves, and and taking this president at at his word?
Speaker 1: Trump is, whether you like him or you hate him, what he sees, what he wants is a giant economic union, a behemoth economy that can protect itself.
Speaker 0: But I'm sure what he wants is is an economic union that benefits the United States. Right?
Speaker 1: Why do you keep saying it's only to the United States? Why wouldn't Canadians benefit? I don't understand why you think that one.
Speaker 0: Well, just a lot of the stuff that makes the EU cool, I I can't imagine the United States would want a supernational government, new competition, Laz. I still I still have lots of questions about, the free flow of labor and what that would do to a brain drain here. The dollar, I do not understand why they would wanna negotiate and give us any kind of deal beyond or above market value on the dollar. Like, why why would they want to you want to even and the Fed and sorry. Just to talk about the Fed.
Like, you know, my understanding is the way that these, institutions work is that they they prioritize kind of the big guys. Right? Like a Germany over a Greece. So is there not a high probability that we really are absolutely not a priority, when it comes to decision making in an institution like that?
Speaker 1: No. That's not the problem, and you're wrong. The point is together I mean, in some ways, that 49th parallel, why is it there? I mean, if you think about it, that's not the border we're trying to protect. We're trying to protect the northern border because right now, the Chinese are knocking on our door and saw the Russians.
And I think that's what's on Trump's mind in in and Canadians should worry about that too. You know, we we we have the benefit of being protected by the US military, and we have fought beside them in countless wars as you know. We're joined at the hip in our beliefs of democracy and freedom of speech. So 80, 90% of the pillar of union is there. Nobody said you had to give up your sovereignty or or change where you were born or anything like that.
That's not the issue. It's an economic union. And so all of this you're speculating, it's fair to do so. You can speculate, but you don't know because it hasn't been negotiated. I'm just one guy having a conversation.
I have no I I'm not representing the Canadian government, but my I'm very fortunate to have 10,000,000 followers. And I broadcast to them, and they say what they think. And what I'm hearing is different than what you're say hearing. A lot of Americans are interested. A lot of Canadians are interested.
I don't have to hire a pollster. I have my own. So I just talk I talk to them every day. And I and they tell me that keep going. This is very interesting.
Very interesting. Tell me more. That's what I'm hearing.
Speaker 0: The the last time that Trump, threatened, to tear up NAFTA, we renegotiated. And, you know, I think whatever you think about Trudeau and this government, is generally believed to have gone quite well for us. Right? We saw trade increase 30% in that time, USMCA. So so why why not just, let those guys negotiate right now, instead of kind of inserting yourself in this debate?
Speaker 1: Listen. There's no government in Canada. There's no guys doing anything right now. We're in limbo, and I'm I'm free to have
Speaker 0: conversations. A big meeting earlier this week with all of the premiers, cabinet ministers that have been going down to Mar a Lago. There are people that have been working on this before Trump even got elected.
Speaker 1: I wanna be transparent with you. I advise Trump to ignore them, because they're gonna be gone soon. And you may think that's treason. It's not. It's just
Speaker 0: A lot of people think that that's treasonous. And so what how how would you,
Speaker 1: force a foreign state to see
Speaker 0: you kinda meddling in a situation that you have no mandate to meddle in.
Speaker 1: I have a Canadian passport. I'm a Canadian citizen. I do not want Justin Trudeau negotiating for me. He's an idiot. Sorry.
Speaker 0: But it's not just Justin Trudeau. Right? It's all the premiers with the exception of Danielle Smith. Right? Do you think Doug Ford is an idiot?
Speaker 1: No. Doug Ford did not get a session in Mar a Lago. He's been throwing barbs at Trump at at Trump, and I think he should go down there and talk to him. I think he's a great guy. But I'll tell you something.
The answer is not to throw tariffs at each other. The answer is to sit down and discuss. And frankly, the government that has been going down there that you just referenced is the same government that has destroyed our economy as measured by the Canadian dollar. I don't want anybody there negotiating on my behalf as a Canadian. I'm not speaking for anybody else except myself.
I have every right to go to Mar a Lago and say whatever I want. We enjoy freedom of speech, all of us. You can do the same thing if you wish, but I'm telling you I don't want him negotiating. I'm talking about the Liberal government. I want new government.
Speaker 0: I wanna ask you, about premier Daniel Smith. So, you know, you went down there with her, and you helped facilitate that meeting. I understand. You mentioned, or you talked about her a little bit earlier, but why do you think it's a good idea, what she's doing? So she's being criticized.
People are criticizing her for essentially taking her leverage off the table. You know, she is saying that she's not interested in restricting energy exports out of Alberta, and and the criticism of that is that she's just, putting her chips on the table, right, and giving away any leverage that we might have as a country. And why is she not doing that?
Speaker 1: The idea of erasing a $188,000,000,000 worth of revenue to Alberta seems stupid to me and certainly to most Canadians. That would be a really dumb thing to do. I mean, you you would you would be forcing the US to find other sources of energy during a period of negotiation, and you destroy the Alberta economy. How dumb is that? That's crazy.
And if and that shouldn't happen. And so if another premier from another province tells her to do that, I'm not surprised she says what she says because that's a really stupid idea. That's not protecting your own people.
Speaker 0: You know, I'm I'm empathetic that she's trying to stand up for for Alberta and Albertans. But just, you know, you're a business guy. Like, if I'm a developer and I wanna buy 11 houses on a block to tear down, don't those houses stand a better chance of getting a better deal if they negotiate together instead of picking them off 1 by 1? Why is this a good strategy? Shouldn't she, like, give the impression at least that it's on the table?
This massive lever that she could pull if she needed to. Why is she giving it away?
Speaker 1: Because first of all, there hasn't been any tariffs imposed yet, and we don't know the size of them. She's dealing as all premiers are in a void. There's no information yet. You've made the assumption that on Tuesday, there's 25%. That may happen.
That may not happen. You don't negotiate with a void with a lack of information. You gotta wait and see. She always has the option to shut off the spigot anytime she wants. And so right now, all these ideas of what we're gonna do to the United States, and let's keep throwing barbs at Trump and let's get the the rhetoric up.
We don't know what's gonna happen next. You don't know? I don't know. We might as well just wait and see. We do have envoys.
I'm my next stop after this, I'm going to the Canadian embassy. There's lots of Canadians here in Washington to celebrate this transition of power, and we're here for a reason because this is our closest neighbor, and we have an economic union with them. We all understand that. And many of the border state governors and senators are also attending to mingle and meet Daniel Smith and other Canadian representatives because we know at some point, this will get negotiated. It'll get done.
Again, we gotta focus on the signal. But beyond that, what we started having this narrative about was a bigger union, which has been thrown on the table by Trump. He started that. He's the one that said in a recent speech as you recall, what whatever he whatever he called it, a beautiful thing or whatever, it's just noise. But the signal is, let's talk economic union, and that's what I'm talking about.
And I think a lot of Canadians are interested in it.
Speaker 0: You have an AI data center in Alberta that you're trying to get up and running. You're running into some issues with it, opposition from the Cree Nation who say that they have not been consulted on it. Was your trip to Mar a Lago an attempt to curry favor, with the premier, with premier, Daniel Smith? Did you talk about that with the premier when you're helping her navigate Mar a Lago?
Speaker 1: Yes. The the the, the initiative the Alberta initiative started about 6 or maybe it's 8 months ago now. I was but we also developed data centers in in places like West Virginia and North Dakota. And I got a call from one of her representatives, and they said, look. We've seen this press about the West Virginia project.
Why is it you never come to Canada and talk to us about data centers? I said, well, everybody knows that you can't get a permit, and that's why there's no foreign capital coming to Canada at all, that that's controlled in Ottawa. And he said, well, you know, you should take a call from the premier because she has a message for you. She has her rights back. I said, oh, really?
And, of course, out of respect, I'm gonna take that call, and I did. And she well, first of all, she's the Albertan people are pretty lucky to have her. She she is she is one hell of a salesperson. I mean, she convinced me to set to to fund a team that flies far away as from Abu Dhabi and Dubai and and Washington DC to go up to Alberta, get in a helicopter with engineers, and and tour the entire province looking for data center sites. And Carl Agron, who is considered worldwide the number one engineer for data centers, he built the very first hypercenter, in Abu Dhabi, and and he flew up there.
He came back when the when he landed, and the chopper was I could hear it on the cell phone. He said, Kevin, buy it all. This I have never seen anything like this. This is a unicorn in the world. The opportunity here for the world's largest data center is unique.
It has everything we need. It's got the population. It's got the hospitals. It's got the infrastructure. It's got the roads.
It's got the water. It's got the land, and they've got the permits. And I said, are you sure? I thought we couldn't get permits. That's the so I went around the world initially saying, look.
It's gonna cost $70,000,000,000. That's money coming back into Canada. That's tens of 1,000 of jobs. That's a whole new polytechnical institute to support the AI data center. That's all of that coming back, and most sovereign wealth funds didn't believe it.
They didn't believe it because they've been been off the radar screen. So I said, sorry, Daniel Smith. You're gonna have to come on a plane with me, and we're gonna have to do the tour together. They don't believe you. And she did.
We we flew to meet some of the largest funds on Earth, eye to eye, and she is Canada's, I believe, best representative. That woman knows how to work a rue. She knows how to, look. I'm saying a lot of I'm giving her praises, and I don't do this unless it's
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, what would you say to somebody who's listening to you and saying that you're praising her so much because you want your data center, approved?
Speaker 1: Oh, I don't want my data center. She wants my data center. Canadians want my data center. The whole country wants my data center. Everybody in Canada wants me to bring $70,000,000,000 back so that our economy can start lighting up again.
And we wanna be number 1 as Canadians in AI technology. It's not me. It's the whole country. I'm just the conduit to make it happen. I'm an investor.
That's what I do. I don't I haven't found a single Canadian, including this this discussion you referenced around indigenous people. We're we're consulting with our neighbors now. We're gonna bring thousands of jobs and educate anybody that's interested in becoming an AI engineer because we need them. And we're we're we're in that narrative now.
We've reached out first. Many of them in fact, there's another series of meetings on January 28th. We are not doing anything out of sync with indigenous people, not a single thing. So we know we're gonna be working with them, and I think they're pretty interested in the opportunity spec by spec. If they don't wanna do it, I get it, but I don't know why they wouldn't.
I mean, my goodness. This is not a refinery. This is not dirty technology. This is cutting edge AI and taking a leadership position worldwide. Every large AI company, every one of them knows about this project now and is asking and inquiring.
Just ask any of the ministers in Alberta, the inbound inquiries about this project.
Speaker 0: Mister Eller, before we go, I I just wanna come back to this idea of the economic union with the United States. I I know you've got a bid to buy TikTok, and, is this dumping for an economic union a a way to give, some airtime to an idea that Trump seems very into so that you can get FaceTime with him, stay in his good graces to pitch your bid to buy TikTok?
Speaker 1: I don't I'm not I'm not trying to get in his good graces. I've been talking to him for a long time. I'm just an investor. This is not you know, my interest in TikTok is it's a incredible opportunity. It's a legacy deal.
I my vision of this thing, along with Frank McCourt, my partner, is to create the world's largest television network that's based on freedom of speech and ownership of your own data and democracy. And what I think is gonna happen here, in fact, you know, today, we we've got meetings with, the China committee on this thing. The Trump just put out a statement about an hour or 10 minutes before you and I started talking that he sees this as some kind of a kind of a joint venture. Waltz was on Face the Nation, specifically referenced our bid because it's the only one that she has in his hands right now. It's an actual offer that he could sign, an LOI, and we could light it up again.
All these are moving parts. The outcome, I don't know. Will there be other bids? I don't know. I I I don't know, but I do know what's important is to be able to have a narrative.
This deal is controlled by Donald Trump. It's his. It's it's not gonna be lit up until he decides what it's gonna look like. So, of course, I have to have, his ear. It's it's his deal.
So if he tells us do this, we're gonna do that. We're a service provider, so will Oracle, so will the others. But make make no mistake about it. This this whole situation is controlled by Trump and Xi. And so whatever they decide, as investors, we have to execute.
That's it. I mean, this is not a Kevin O'Leary, Frank McCourt deal. It's a Donald Trump deal.
Speaker 0: Okay. Mister O'Leary, thank you very much for taking the time.
Speaker 1: I I really listen. I I I'm I'm happy to have the narrative. I'm glad we're having it because this is a great way to communicate. You may not agree with what I'm saying, but at least we're talking about it. I really appreciate it.
Thanks a lot.
Speaker 0: Okay. I appreciate you coming by. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Bye bye.